Who is a "creator"?

[benhamill]

While reading the definition, something occurred to me that I wonder about.

The 4th and 5th criteria refer to the software’s “creators”, but the second talks about community contributions. Does this imply that the “creators” may be distinct from the “community”? Does this definition intentionally punt on how one defines “creators” to whom these powers are granted?

To be clear: I understand and agree with the spirit expressed here. I’m more wondering if y'all have thoughts on how best to defend this sort of assertion of rights against potential attack by someone claiming rights as a “creator” in order to undermine the protections others are trying to put in place.

[shaunagm]

There are a number of terms in this license that are very loosely defined, including "creator", "community", "consistently and fairly enforced", "welcoming", and "reasonable and voluntary compensation". ("Unethical" is also a very loosely defined word, but the license specifies that it is up to the project to determine what is unethical and what is not.)

I don't think the loose definitions are inherently a problem. All definitions have some uncertainty in them, and that's one of the key functions that organizations like FSF and OSI serve - to (somewhat) authoritatively rule on how terms are defined in various cases. But that does raise the question of what organization will end up defining and enforcing the Ethical Source Definition. To me, that question is almost more important that the terms of the ESD itself. The specific language of the ESD will depend a great deal on what capacities the community has for definition and enforcement.

[robbyoconnor]

Loose definitions aren't good in things like this if you want it to have effect vs just being people acting like the morality police...

[zspencer]

At present, the current definition does not include a reference to "creator" anymore; however it does refer to "maintainers."

@benhamill and @shaunagm - Does the revised definition feel like it addresses your concerns?

@robbyoconner - I am unsure how I can apply your comment in a way that makes a practical step towards addressing your concern. If this is a statement of general dissatisfaction; I would encourage creating a new issue that points out what in particular makes you feel this way. I am happy to brainstorm with you in that issue to help address your concerns.

[robbyoconnor]

@robbyoconner - I am unsure how I can apply your comment in a way that makes a practical step towards addressing your concern. If this is a statement of general dissatisfaction; I would encourage creating a new issue that points out what in particular makes you feel this way. I am happy to brainstorm with you in that issue to help address your concerns.

The way is to use an actual legal framework that is enforceable. At current, my main issue is that Ethical Source is unenforceable. How are you actually going to enforce it? None of the frameworks used have the full backing of international law. Remember, not everyone is in the US.

[zspencer]

I am disinclined to continue the general conversation of enforceability in this issue; as it distracts from the original openers' concerns and dilutes our ability to respond to community needs and concerns effectively. I have created #50 as an alternative forum for future discussions of enforceability.